DOCSLIB.ORG

Nevada Wildlife Action Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nevada Wildlife Action Plan Nevada Wildlife Action Plan IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES OF CONSERVATION PRIORITY Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of Conservation Priority Species Overview of the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) The Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) assessed the relative vulnerability, and the relative importance of factors contributing to that vulnerability, for Nevada’s Species of Conservation Priority (SOCP) using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI). The CCVI was chosen for this project for a number of reasons: 1) it was designed as a rapid way of assessing a large number of species in a relatively short period of time; 2) it is cost-effective (free tool provided by NatureServe); 3) it is packaged as a programmed Excel workbook and is easy to use; 4) it was not overly technical; it was designed to be used by any person with a science background; and, 5) the results are presented in a way that allows the user to group taxa by their relative risk or by specific sensitivity factors, which helps direct management and adaptation. The CCVI uses a scoring system that integrates a species’ predicted exposure (direct and indirect) to climate change within the assessment area (i.e., the state of Nevada) and a series of factors, all supported by published studies, associated with a species’ sensitivity to changes in climate. The tool also incorporates documented or modeled response to climate change, if available. The tool weighs each sensitivity score depending on the magnitude of projected climate change, incorporates any documented or modeled responses, and calculates a final vulnerability index score. Direct exposure is the magnitude of projected temperature and moisture change across the species' range within the assessment area. For this project, direct exposure was measured using climate data obtained from The Climate Wizard. The Climate Wizard uses base climate projections previously downscaled by Maurer et al. (2007). As recommended in NatureServe’s Guidelines for Using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index (Young et al., 2011), a mid-century time line, Medium A1B emissions scenario, and ensemble average of 16 general circulation models were used for the species’ vulnerability assessments. Predicted moisture changes were based on the Hamon AET:PET Moisture Metric, also developed by The Climate Wizard team. This metric integrates temperature and precipitation through a ratio of actual evapotranspiration (AET) to potential evapotranspiration (PET) with consideration of total daylight hours and saturated vapor pressure (Young et al., 2011). Indirect exposure includes phenomena such as sea level rise (not a factor in Nevada), the presence of natural and/or anthropogenic barriers that would hinder or prevent a species from dispersing to a new area with a favorable climate envelope, or human-induced land use changes designed to mitigate greenhouse gases (e.g., the construction of renewable energy projects such as wind farms or solar arrays may remove key habitats or create barriers). There are six species-specific sensitivity factors considered by the CCVI. These factors are listed below with a brief summary/explanation. 1. Dispersal and movements – species with poor dispersal abilities may not be able to track shifting favorable climate envelopes. 2. Predicted sensitivity to temperature and moisture changes – species requiring specific moisture and temperature regimes may be less likely to find similar areas as the climate changes and previously- 70 | P a g e Nevada Wildlife Action Plan associated temperature and precipitation patterns uncouple. Four separate factors are scored here as listed below in a through d: a. Historical and physiological sensitivity to changes in temperature. b. Historical and physiological sensitivity to changes in precipitation, hydrology, or moisture regime. c. Dependence on a specific disturbance regime likely to be impacted by climate change – species dependent on habitats that are maintained by regular disturbances (e.g., fires or flooding) are vulnerable to climate change-induced changes in the frequency and intensity of these disturbances. d. Dependence on ice, ice-edge, or snow-cover habitats – the extent of oceanic ice sheets and mountain snow fields are decreasing as temperatures increase, imperiling species dependent on these habitats. 3. Restriction to uncommon geological features or derivatives – species requiring specific substrates, soils, or physical features such as caves, cliffs, or sand dunes may become vulnerable to climate change if their favored climate conditions shift to areas without these physical elements. 4. Reliance on interspecific interactions – because species will react idiosyncratically to climate change, those with tight relationships with other species may be threatened. A series of five factors are scored within this category as listed below in a through e: a. Dependence on other species to generate habitat. b. Dietary versatility (animals only). c. Pollinator versatility (plants only). d. Dependence on other species for propagule dispersal. e. Forms part of an interspecific interaction not covered above. 5. Genetic factors – a species' ability to evolve adaptations to environmental conditions brought about by climate change is largely dependent on its existing genetic variation. Two factors are included in this category: a. Measured genetic variation. b. Occurrence of bottlenecks in recent evolutionary history. 6. Phenological response to changing seasonal temperature and precipitation dynamics – research suggests that some phylogenetic groups are declining due to lack of response to changing annual temperature dynamics (e.g., earlier onset of spring, longer growing season), including some bird species that have not advanced their migration times, and some temperate zone plants that are not moving their flowering times. The final section of the CCVI incorporates any available data on documented or modeled response to climate change. This is an optional section and is not required for the CCVI to calculate a vulnerability score. If peer- reviewed, published data are available related to a species response to climate change (e.g., range shifts, range contraction, or phenology mismatches), the species response would be scored in this section. Additionally, the results of available species-specific models can be incorporated in this section. 71 | P a g e Nevada Wildlife Action Plan After all of the appropriate factors are scored, an overall CCVI score is automatically calculated by the tool (i.e., Extremely Vulnerable, Highly Vulnerable, Moderately Vulnerable, Not Vulnerable/Presumed Stable, or Not Vulnerable/Increase Likely), and a measure of confidence of the score (Very High, High, Moderate, Low) is provided. This confidence relates specifically to the level of uncertainty indicated by the assessor based on the range of values given for each factor. Checking a range of values for particular factors tends to decrease confidence in species information. The CCVI does not include factors that are already considered in existing conservation status assessments. Conservation status ranks assess a species vulnerability to extinction from a wide variety of factors such as population size, range size, threats, and demographic factors. These types of factors are not repeated in the CCVI. The CCVI only takes into consideration those factors that are related to a species vulnerability to climate change. The goal is for the CCVI to complement NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks and not to partially duplicate factors. Ideally, CCVI scores and Conservation Status Ranks should be used in concert. Complex interactions such as shifts in competitive, predator-prey, or host-parasite interactions are likely to be important as well, but they are not included in this rapid assessment because of the difficulty and unpredictability inherent in simultaneous evaluation of climate change on interacting species. Applying the CCVI to Nevada’s Species of Conservation Priority Species’ range maps and natural history information were obtained from a number of sources including the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (Wildlife Action Plan Team, 2006), the NNHP Biotics database, The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan (Bradley et al., 2006), Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Nevada (Floyd et al., 2007), The Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan (GBBO, 2010), NatureServe Explorer, federal agency documents (e.g., USGS professional reports or published studies, USFWS Recovery Plans, Federal Register), field guides, and expert input. In addition, once available, the results of habitat modeling for certain key habitats conducted by TNC (TNC, 2011), and the results of bird population modeling conducted by GBBO (GBBO, 2011) were incorporated into the CCVI tool to score the appropriate factors for certain species. Assessments were completed for a representative group of species within each taxonomic group. After these initial CCVI scores were calculated by NNHP, an expert workshop was held (December 2009 in Reno) to solicit feedback and comments from biologists working throughout Nevada. The two-day workshop was well-attended and included representatives from federal (BLM, EPA, NPS, USFS, and USFWS) and state (NDOW, NNHP) agencies, a non-profit organization (TNC), and academia (UNR). Highly constructive comments and feedback were obtained from the attendees on the scoring of the factors, and additional species information was also obtained to better
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2005 Wildlife Action Plan: Terrestrial Nongame Birds, Mammals, and Reptiles
    APPENDIX D IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES OF CONSERVATION PRIORITY: DETAILED METHODS AND APPROACH 2005 Wildlife Action Plan: Terrestrial Nongame Birds, Mammals, and Reptiles Methods The Species of Conservation Priority identification process began in July, 2002. After initially gathering input from partner land management agency personnel at the field level, a Species Priority Matrix was developed using standard species conservation prioritization methodology (Natural Heritage Scorecard; Panjabi et al. 2001). Nevada Natural Heritage Program Species Scorecard scores were incorporated into the Species Priority Matrix. NDOW Wildlife Diversity biologists were subsequently asked to score all species of nongame birds, mammals, and reptiles using the Species Priority Matrix. The Species Priority Matrix contained the following scoring categories. 1. Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species Species with Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species status under either federal or state law were given 1 point. Total points possible in this category was 1 – multiple points for having both federal and state status were not given because state statutes are designed to generally reflect federal status. 2. Nevada Natural Heritage Program Score – Inverted Each species was given the inverted score of the Nevada Natural Heritage Program State Rank score; that is, NNHP scores run from 1 (highest risk) to 5 (lowest risk), so it was necessary to invert the score in order for “highest risk” to have the greatest arithmetic weight in the matrix. The conversion scale is illustrated in the following table. NNHP State Rank NV Species Priority Matrix Score 5 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 1 5 3. Threat The biologists were asked to assign scores to each species representing their perception of the degree of threat facing the species.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Final Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV0S010-2009-1014-EA May 2016 Eastern Nevada Transmission Project APPLICANT Silver State Energy Association GENERAL LOCATION Clark County, Nevada BLM CASE FILE SERIAL NUMBER N-086357 PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 Phone: (702) 515-5172 Fax: (702) 515-5010 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .........................................................................................2 1.4 Decisions to be Made .....................................................................................................7 1.5 BLM Policies, Plans, Authorizing Actions, and Permit Requirements .........................7 Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................9 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Regulatory Framework for Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • Species Selection Process
    FINAL Appendix J to S Volume 3, Book 2 JULY 2008 COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINAL VOLUME 3 Coyote Springs Investment Planned Development Project Appendix J to S July 2008 Prepared EIS for: LEAD AGENCY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reno, NV COOPERATING AGENCIES U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. George, UT U.S. Bureau of Land Management Ely, NV Prepared MSHCP for: Coyote Springs Investment LLC 6600 North Wingfield Parkway Sparks, NV 89496 Prepared by: ENTRIX, Inc. 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 200 Concord, CA 94520 Huffman-Broadway Group 828 Mission Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Resource Concepts, Inc. 340 North Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703 PROJECT NO. 3132201 COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Appendix J to S ENTRIX, Inc. Huffman-Broadway Group Resource Concepts, Inc. 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 200 828 Mission Avenue 340 North Minnesota Street Concord, CA 94520 San Rafael, CA 94901 Carson City, NV 89703 Phone 925.935.9920 Fax 925.935.5368 Phone 415.925.2000 Fax 415.925.2006 Phone 775.883.1600 Fax 775.883.1656 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix J Mitigation Plan, The Coyote Springs Development Project, Lincoln County, Nevada Appendix K Summary of Nevada Water Law and its Administration Appendix L Alternate Sites and Scenarios Appendix M Section 106 and Tribal Consultation Documents Appendix N Fiscal Impact Analysis Appendix O Executive Summary of Master Traffic Study for Clark County Development Appendix P Applicant for Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Application, Coyote Springs Project, Lincoln County, Nevada Appendix Q Response to Comments on the Draft EIS Appendix R Agreement for Settlement of all Claims to Groundwater in the Coyote Spring Basin Appendix S Species Selection Process JULY 2008 FINAL i APPENDIX S Species Selection Process Table of Contents Appendix S: Species Selection Process ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources and Management
    Vermilion flycatcher The upper Muddy River is considered one of the Mojave’s most important Common buckeye on sunflower areas of biodiversity and regionally Coyote (Canis latrans) Damselfly (Enallagma sp.) (Junonia coenia on Helianthus annuus) important ecological but threatened riparian landscapes (Provencher et al. 2005). Not only does the Warm Springs Natural Area encompass the majority of Muddy River tributaries it is also the largest single tract of land in the upper Muddy River set aside for the benefit of native species in perpetuity. The prominence of water in an otherwise barren Mojave landscape provides an oasis for regional wildlife. A high bird diversity is attributed to an abundance of riparian and floodplain trees and shrubs. Contributions to plant diversity come from the Mojave Old World swallowtail (Papilio machaon) Desertsnow (Linanthus demissus) Lobe-leaved Phacelia (Phacelia crenulata) Cryptantha (Cryptantha sp.) vegetation that occur on the toe slopes of the Arrow Canyon Range from the west and the plant species occupying the floodplain where they are supported by a high water table. Several marshes and wet meadows add to the diversity of plants and animals. The thermal springs and tributaries host an abundance of aquatic species, many of which are endemic. The WSNA provides a haven for the abundant wildlife that resides permanently or seasonally and provides a significant level of protection for imperiled species. Tarantula (Aphonopelma spp.) Beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris) Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla)
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Freshwater Gastropods of Canada and the United States Paul D
    This article was downloaded by: [69.144.7.122] On: 24 July 2013, At: 12:35 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Fisheries Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Conservation Status of Freshwater Gastropods of Canada and the United States Paul D. Johnson a , Arthur E. Bogan b , Kenneth M. Brown c , Noel M. Burkhead d , James R. Cordeiro e o , Jeffrey T. Garner f , Paul D. Hartfield g , Dwayne A. W. Lepitzki h , Gerry L. Mackie i , Eva Pip j , Thomas A. Tarpley k , Jeremy S. Tiemann l , Nathan V. Whelan m & Ellen E. Strong n a Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) , 2200 Highway 175, Marion , AL , 36756-5769 E-mail: b North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences , Raleigh , NC c Louisiana State University , Baton Rouge , LA d United States Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science Center , Gainesville , FL e University of Massachusetts at Boston , Boston , Massachusetts f Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources , Florence , AL g U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Jackson , MS h Wildlife Systems Research , Banff , Alberta , Canada i University of Guelph, Water Systems Analysts , Guelph , Ontario , Canada j University of Winnipeg , Winnipeg , Manitoba , Canada k Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources , Marion , AL l Illinois Natural History Survey , Champaign , IL m University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa , AL n Smithsonian Institution, Department of Invertebrate Zoology , Washington , DC o Nature-Serve , Boston , MA Published online: 14 Jun 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • American Fisheries Society • JUNE 2013
    VOL 38 NO 6 FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org JUNE 2013 All Things Aquaculture Habitat Connections Hobnobbing Boondoggles? Freshwater Gastropod Status Assessment Effects of Anthropogenic Chemicals 03632415(2013)38(6) Biology and Management of Inland Striped Bass and Hybrid Striped Bass James S. Bulak, Charles C. Coutant, and James A. Rice, editors The book provides a first-ever, comprehensive overview of the biology and management of striped bass and hybrid striped bass in the inland waters of the United States. The book’s 34 chapters are divided into nine major sections: History, Habitat, Growth and Condition, Population and Harvest Evaluation, Stocking Evaluations, Natural Reproduction, Harvest Regulations, Conflicts, and Economics. A concluding chapter discusses challenges and opportunities currently facing these fisheries. This compendium will serve as a single source reference for those who manage or are interested in inland striped bass or hybrid striped bass fisheries. Fishery managers and students will benefit from this up-to-date overview of priority topics and techniques. Serious anglers will benefit from the extensive information on the biology and behavior of these popular sport fishes. 588 pages, index, hardcover List price: $79.00 AFS Member price: $55.00 Item Number: 540.80C Published May 2013 TO ORDER: Online: fisheries.org/ bookstore American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010 Fisheries VOL 38 NO 6 JUNE 2013 Contents COLUMNS President’s Hook 245 Scientific Meetings are Essential If our society considers student participation in our major meetings as a high priority, why are federal and state agen- cies inhibiting attendance by their fisheries professionals at these very same meetings, deeming them non-essential? A colony of the federally threatened Tulotoma attached to the John Boreman—AFS President underside of a small boulder from lower Choccolocco Creek, 262 Talladega County, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Natural Heritage Program Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S
    Nevada Natural Heritage Program Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 5002, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5245 voice: (775) 684-2900 | fax: (775) 684-2909 | web: heritage.nv.gov At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List July 2020 The Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) Watch List, contains taxa that could become at-risk in systematically collects information on Nevada's at- the future. risk, rare, endangered, and threatened species, providing the best single source of information on Taxa on the At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List are Nevada’s imperiled biodiversity. organized by taxonomic group, and presented alphabetically by scientific name within each group. Nevada's health and economic well-being depend Currently, there are 637 Tracking List taxa: 285 plants, upon its biodiversity and wise land stewardship. This 208 invertebrates, 64 fishes, 9 amphibians, 7 reptiles, challenge increases as population and land-use 27 birds, and 37 mammals. pressures continue to grow. Nevada is among the top 10 states in the nation for both the diversity and the Documentation of population status, locations, or vulnerability of its living heritage. With early planning other updates or corrections for any of the taxa on and responsible development, economic growth and this list are always welcome. Literature citations with our biological resources can exist side by side. NNHP is taxonomic revisions and descriptions of new taxa are a central source for information critical to achieving also appreciated. The Nevada Native Species Site this balance. Management priorities for the state’s Survey Report form is available on our website under imperiled biodiversity are continually assessed, the Submit Data tab and is the preferred format for providing opportunities to prevent population losses submitting information to NNHP.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada and Utah Springsnail Species Descriptions Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..2 1] Amnicola Limosa
    Appendix A: Nevada and Utah Springsnail Species Descriptions Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..2 1] Amnicola limosa ...................................................... Mud Amnicola ............................................................................... 4 2] Assiminea infima ..................................................... Badwater Snail .............................................................................. 6 3] Colligyrus greggi ..................................................... Rocky Mountain Duskysnail ........................................................... 8 4] Eremopyrgus eganensis........................................... Steptoe Hydrobe ......................................................................... 10 5] Fluminicola coloradoensis ....................................... Green River Pebblesnail ............................................................... 12 6] Fluminicola dalli ...................................................... Pyramid Lake Pebblesnail ............................................................ 14 7] Fluminicola turbiniformis ........................................ Turban Pebblesnail ...................................................................... 16 8] Fluminicola virginius ............................................... Virginia Mountains Pebblesnail .................................................... 18 9] Juga acutifilosa ....................................................... Topaz Juga .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Warm Springs Natural Area Stewardship Plan
    WARM SPRINGS NATURAL AREA 1.01 Site Overview 4.01 Special Management 1.02 Stakeholder Process 4.02 Fire Management 1.03 Commitments for Managing the Property 4.03 Invasive Management 1.04 Purpose of the Stewardship Plan 4.04 Cultural Resource Management 5.01 Public Use 2.01 Site History 5.02 Management Priorities 2.02 Cultural Resources 5.03 Accomplishments and Next Steps 2.03 Hydrology and Water Development 2.04 Facilities Management 3.01 Biodiversity 3.02 Sensitive Species of WSNA 3.03 Ecological Systems on WSNA A.01 SNPLMA Nomination 3.04 Muddy River Aquatic Assemblage A.02 Sensitive Species Table 3.05 Warm Springs Aquatic Assemblage A.03 Resource Inventories 3.06 Deciduous Riparian Woodland A.04 Bird Checklist 3.07 Riparian Shrubland A.05 Floral Inventory 3.08 Riparian Marsh/Meadow A.06 Hydrologic Monitoring Table 3.09 Mesquite Bosque 3.10 Other Ecological Groups CONTRIBUTORS 2007-2010 CORE TEAM Tanya Anderson, The Nature Conservancy Janet Bair, US Fish and Wildlife Service Robert Johnson, SNWA Cynthia Martinez, US Fish and Wildlife Service Janet Monaco, SNWA Jon Sjöberg, Nevada Department of Wildlife TECHNICAL ADVISORS Elisabeth Ammon, Great Basin Bird Observatory Mauricia Baca, Outside Las Vegas Foundation Amy LaVoie, US Fish and Wildlife Service Heidi Roberts, HRA Inc., Conservation Archaeology Amy Sprunger, US Fish and Wildlife Service Cris Tomlinson, Nevada Department of Wildlife SNWA STAFF William Rinne, Director, Surface Water Resources Department Janet Monaco, Manager, Muddy and Virgin Rivers Division Robert Johnson, Manager, Warm Springs Natural Area Cathryn Cherry, Environmental Planner David Syzdek, Environmental Biologist Crystal Shanley, Biologist Disclaimer The following document is intended to be a guidance document for Warm Springs Natural Area as described under “Plan Purpose” on page 15 and is not intended to require implementation of any specific management action recommendation.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for 14 Springsnails in Nevada and Utah
    Species Status Assessment Report for 14 Springsnails in Nevada and Utah June 2017 – Version 1.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 Contributing Authors (alphabetical): Michael Burroughs, Susan Cooper, Corey Kallstrom, Jeri Sjoberg, Jennifer Wilkening, Carla Wise ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank all of those who contributed to this Species Status Assessment. We would like to recognize and thank the following individuals who provided substantive review and insights for our Species Status Assessment as peer and partner agency reviewers: Megan Poff (USGS); David Rogowski (Arizona Game and Fish Department); Chris Crookshanks and Jon Sjoberg (Nevada Department of Wildlife); Kevin Wheeler and Krissy Wilson (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources); Mark Slaughter (Bureau of Land Management Southern Nevada District Office); Cassie Mellon (Bureau of Land Management West Desert District); Kristie Boatner (Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest); James Whalen and Jens Swensen (Forest Service Fishlake National Forest). We also thank all Fish and Wildlife Service personnel from Regions 1, 6, and 8 who contributed to the Species Status Assessment; in particular, we acknowledge the contributions of the other members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service core team: Heidi Crowell, Dan Russell, Lee Ann Carranza, and George Weekley. In addition, we would like to thank the following individuals whose efforts provided substantive data used in this report: Don Sada (Desert Research Institute); Daniel Villanueva (SCA); Kevin Guadalupe and others with the Nevada Department of Wildlife; George Oliver, Kevin Wheeler, Krissy Wilson, and others with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; and Mike Golden and others with BIO-WEST and Southern Nevada Water Authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Clarif County, Nevada
    Clarif County, Nevada Herml Hiatt and Jim Boone, edltoTs Department of Comprehensive Planning - November 2003 Clark County, Nevada SPECIES ACCOUNT MANUAL November 2003 Editors Hermi Hiatt, Lead Scientific Editor Jim Boone, Scientific Editor Design and Layout Cindy Gates, Graphic Artist Clark County Comprehensive Planning Project Coordinator Christina Gibson, Clark County Comprehensive Planning For Non-Commercial Use Only Not for Resale Cover photo - Western Burrowing Owl: Aaron Ambos INTRODUCTION This Species Account Manual serves as a companion document to the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Environ­ mental Impact Statement (MSHCP) , which covers a wide variety of species and their habitats in Clark County, Nevada. The Species Account Manual informs about the species of concern covered within the MSHCP. It provides an individual species account describing the appearance of each species, identifying features, the kind of habitat in which a given species might be found, and the range of that species. Additional comments on the sensitivity of the species are also included. While this manual is informative as a companion document and can be carried in the field , it is not intended as a true field guide. It does not contain a key for identification. Species are listed in alphabetical order, and not as presented in the MSHCP. To facilitate finding a species, animal species are grouped alphabetically by common name. However, alphabetical listing of vascular and non -vascular plants is by scientific names since many plants have the same genus name. Also, MSHCP species are grouped as Covered Species, Evaluation Species, and Watch List Species. Covered Species are those for wh ich sufficient information is known and for which adequate management prescriptions exist to help protect them.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the Rare Aquatic Species of the Muddy River Ecosystem
    4‘A RECOVERYPLAN FOIR TI~IE JRARJ~ AQUATIC SPKCI[ES OF TF[F1 MUDDY RW]ER IECOSYSTEIM JRc~gioiri 11 1’ A 4 RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE RARE AQUATIC SPECIES OF THE MUDDY RIVER ECOSYSTEM First Revision (Original Approved: February 14, 1983) Prepared by SelenaJ. Werdon. for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 Portland, Oregon - M~&~aei J. Spear Approved: Date: 4~ /6 4 This Recovery Plan covers one federally listed species (Moapa dace) and seven species ofspecial concern in the Muddy River ecosystem. DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the Services. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Services. Objectives of the plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval ofany individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other thanthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service. They represent the official position ofthe National Marine Fisheries Service! U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator/Regional Director or Director as approved.
    [Show full text]